Global warming hysteria

To offer some idea of just how tenuous the “consensus” concerning global warming is among scientists, consider two current letters in Science magazine (May 11, 2007) concerning the relationship between CO2 and global warming. The letters, both totaling only eight paragraphs, used the following ambiguous terms repeatedly: “might” or “could” 5 times; “estimate” 4 times; “assumption” 3 times; “assumes” 2 times; and one time each for “implied, approximation, concept” and “plausible.” Hardly the stuff of dogma!

The true genesis of global warming is still not clearly understood by scientists (“consensus” by predisposed UN committees is not scientific discipline, nor is Mr. Gore’s farce of artfully selected self-serving data!), has seen no reasoned public debate, and is shamelessly agenda driven. Maybe it’s time to take a deep breath and keep a rational perspective on all this global warming hysteria before misconception, biased science, money and ignorant politicians find a way to parlay this “catastrophe” into feel good legislation or regulations that solve nothing. While environmentalists cheer the success of their decade-long battle to bring this crusade to the front burner, the frightening fallout is the government’s preparation to leverage irrational fears into control over your dollars, choices and freedoms.

Dr. Alan (Iâ€™m going to need to see a transcript to have to believe that doctorate),

You may be right. In fact, for argument sake, letâ€™s say that you ARE right. That all the scientific evidence of global warming is wrong. Weâ€™ll call it the WMD theory!

So what do you proposed that we do? Simply nothing? That we should keep up with our gluttony of consumption, our out of control birth rate, our constant and baffling inability to recycle and accept that all of Neutronsâ€™ law of physics are correct except that the (small) one about every action having an equal and opposite reaction?

I just donâ€™t see it. Even if the overwhelming evidence turns out to be wrongâ€¦what could be harmed from having moter viechel companies producing cars that donâ€™t run on gas, and frees the US from foreign influences? What could be so bad to start pushing for better packaging of goods so as to reduce you amount of garbage that YOU have to pay to remove? What could be so harmful about recycling materials you otherwise would trash? You may make a few bucks or two while youâ€™re at it.

So if all your wishing happens to â€œmake all the bad go awayâ€?, what could be so bad about changing (a little at a time) ones lifestyle so as to at least have your neighbor and their family on your mind? I think the worst thing that could happen other than some large business having to revamp their mission statement would be that people would be more connected with each other.

Nowâ€¦consider the possibility that your wrongâ€¦and we do nothingâ€¦

Pauly

Dr. Alan (Iâ€™m going to need to see a transcript to have to believe that doctorate),

You may be right. In fact, for argument sake, letâ€™s say that you ARE right. That all the scientific evidence of global warming is wrong. Weâ€™ll call it the WMD theory!

So what do you proposed that we do? Simply nothing? That we should keep up with our gluttony of consumption, our out of control birth rate, our constant and baffling inability to recycle and accept that all of Neutronsâ€™ law of physics are correct except that the (small) one about every action having an equal and opposite reaction?

I just donâ€™t see it. Even if the overwhelming evidence turns out to be wrongâ€¦what could be harmed from having moter viechel companies producing cars that donâ€™t run on gas, and frees the US from foreign influences? What could be so bad to start pushing for better packaging of goods so as to reduce you amount of garbage that YOU have to pay to remove? What could be so harmful about recycling materials you otherwise would trash? You may make a few bucks or two while youâ€™re at it.

So if all your wishing happens to â€œmake all the bad go awayâ€?, what could be so bad about changing (a little at a time) ones lifestyle so as to at least have your neighbor and their family on your mind? I think the worst thing that could happen other than some large business having to revamp their mission statement would be that people would be more connected with each other.

Nowâ€¦consider the possibility that your wrongâ€¦and we do nothingâ€¦

J

They are planning to tax our breathing and this fails to alarm people. A bunch of the rich an powerful are going to make a lot more than a buck or two with this fear scam. The oceans are the top CO2 producer on the planet, anthropogenic CO2 is less than 10% of the total. Oh yeah and guess what, once the melting hits the tipping point it’s going to get colder around the planet. That is the long term worry. We may find we are trying to produce as much CO2 as possible in 30-50 years to mitigate global cooling. Ironic.

J

They are planning to tax our breathing and this fails to alarm people. A bunch of the rich an powerful are going to make a lot more than a buck or two with this fear scam. The oceans are the top CO2 producer on the planet, anthropogenic CO2 is less than 10% of the total. Oh yeah and guess what, once the melting hits the tipping point it’s going to get colder around the planet. That is the long term worry. We may find we are trying to produce as much CO2 as possible in 30-50 years to mitigate global cooling. Ironic.

Pauly

A bunch of rich and powerful people are planning on taxing your berating?!? OMG!

First off, letâ€™s get down to earth. You cannot go from the largest surplus the nations ever know to the largest defect in 3 years without having to raise taxes to pay for it. The only thing this administration is going to do about it is to leave it up to the successors to make the hard call. AND YOU KNOW IT!!

As far as rich and powerful men making a buck, again, â€œHelloâ€?â€¦earth calling you! The men who appose this ARE the rich and powerful ones. And they could care nothing about your health or the health of your family. Nothing is fiercer (or morally corrupts) than a rich man learning that he may not be making as much money.

â€œBut Pauly, Al Gore is a rich and powerful man who will make millions!â€?

This is true. But the men who did the research to find this information were not rich or powerful, just concerned people who have, together, seen an obvious and overwhelming series of events. The needed somebody who cared about the subject, had charisma and money to promote their findings. The research on â€œAn un-covenant truthâ€? WAS NOT done by Gore himself. For the love of godâ€¦please remember that! There are several parts to a scientific process. The last part of a scientific process IS to present your finding. That is where Gore came in. Yes he had knowledge of the subject and was already into it, so that was probably the deciding factor for him doing the series of lectures and the movie. Otherwise they would have found somebody else.

The people who are going to make money are the oil barons, the shifty politicians and any other business owners, that are more in tone with making money than the health of their fellow man. SO YES, if somebody like Gore makes a lot of money but is able to better our society as a wholeâ€¦than Iâ€™ll pony up my cash.

Pauly

A bunch of rich and powerful people are planning on taxing your berating?!? OMG!

First off, letâ€™s get down to earth. You cannot go from the largest surplus the nations ever know to the largest defect in 3 years without having to raise taxes to pay for it. The only thing this administration is going to do about it is to leave it up to the successors to make the hard call. AND YOU KNOW IT!!

As far as rich and powerful men making a buck, again, â€œHelloâ€?â€¦earth calling you! The men who appose this ARE the rich and powerful ones. And they could care nothing about your health or the health of your family. Nothing is fiercer (or morally corrupts) than a rich man learning that he may not be making as much money.

â€œBut Pauly, Al Gore is a rich and powerful man who will make millions!â€?

This is true. But the men who did the research to find this information were not rich or powerful, just concerned people who have, together, seen an obvious and overwhelming series of events. The needed somebody who cared about the subject, had charisma and money to promote their findings. The research on â€œAn un-covenant truthâ€? WAS NOT done by Gore himself. For the love of godâ€¦please remember that! There are several parts to a scientific process. The last part of a scientific process IS to present your finding. That is where Gore came in. Yes he had knowledge of the subject and was already into it, so that was probably the deciding factor for him doing the series of lectures and the movie. Otherwise they would have found somebody else.

The people who are going to make money are the oil barons, the shifty politicians and any other business owners, that are more in tone with making money than the health of their fellow man. SO YES, if somebody like Gore makes a lot of money but is able to better our society as a wholeâ€¦than Iâ€™ll pony up my cash.

Karter

Pauly,

After reading a couple of your postings it is my belief that you do not understand the political factors involved when it comes to the global warming debate and when it comes to how funds are granted to scientists. Those who vocalize that man contributes to global warming or who say man is the major cause of it get about as much research money granted to them as they want. Those who oppose that theory are treated as heretics, are accused of being paid by the oil industry and consequentially do not receive grant money. As if to be saying that they couldnâ€™t have come up with a counter theory all on their own, so they must be getting paid off by big oil, right? Things cannot get much more corrupt or more politically bigoted than that.

30 years ago, every major environmentalist and every major environmental organization was 100% sure that global COOLING was just around the corner. They were all so sure. They said the only “solution” was to reduce our use of fossil fuels and energy, and to have the government take control of the world’s economies. We ignored their advice. The global cooling never came. Now they claim that we are causing global warming. And their “solution” is the same. In both cases, their real goal is to have the government take control of the economy, and to get rid of capitalism. They’re just using the environment as an excuse to adopt their socialist policies.

Environmentalism is a religion that is based more on political ambitions than science. I donâ€™t recall the name of the person who said this, and I might be paraphrasing a little, but it goes something like this: The desire to save the world is almost always a front for the desire to control it.

Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, said that if one becomes skeptical of the global warming theories asserted by activist environmentalists that you are looked upon by them as if you were a holocaust denier. â€œThe environmental movement, really it is a political activist movement. And they have become hugely influential at a global level.â€?

Results from a study showed that the snow pack in the Cascade Mountains near Seattle, Washington was down 50% from what it was in 1950. Those results were trumpeted by environmental scientists and leftist politicians as proof of human-caused global warming. But the numbers were way off from what is normal for that area. The years chosen for the comparison had been cherry-picked. 1950 was a record year for snowfall, and 1995 was a near record low for snowfall.

Al Gore plays the same game of deception in his agenda driven speeches and in his joke of a documentary An Inconvenient Truth. He says that the relationship between CO2 and climate temperatures is very complicated, but that there is a relationship. He is right. But what he doesnâ€™t say is that the relationship is just the opposite of what he wants people to believe. In actuality, rises in temperature lead CO2 levels. In other words, CO2 increases lag behind temperature increases. By the time CO2 levels reach their peak, temperatures have been falling for about 800 years.

You think Al Gore has knowledge of this subject? What knowledge he has he picks and choses which part of that knowledge he decides to let you in on.

In an interview with Grist Magazine about global warming Al Gore said: “I believe it is appropriate to have an overrepresentation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”

Pauly, you are wondering what harm could come from â€œchanging ones lifestyleâ€¦â€? As I stated above, CO2 does not drive temperatures up. Despite that fact, The Kyoto Protocol comes down to sharp cutbacks on the economic activities of the United States by proclaiming that cutbacks in CO2 would curb global warming. However, it calls for smaller cutbacks in CO2 emissions caused by other industrialized nations which are among the worst offenders of pollution standards â€“ China and India. Overlooked in the debate has been the fact that the economic impact of Kyoto on the United States would be at least 4 times greater than on Europe. So itâ€™s obvious that the agenda of global warming propagandists is the same as that of their fellow environmentalists and that is to stop economic growth in the U.S. No surprise then that in the mid-1990â€™s the U.S. Senate voted 95-0 to reject the Kyoto protocol.

Caps on emissions translate to a stiff tax on gasoline and electric bills. Until we have a viable alternative to gasoline, that is what we could be facing. Do you feel you already pay a lot of your household expenses on gasoline? I know I do. How about that electricity bill? Has it been too low lately?

In July 2001, in Bonn, Germany, 178 countries decided to sign on to the Kyoto protocol, with the United States staying out of it. The Kyoto-Bonn accord allows countries to subtract carbon sequestered in “sinks,” like forests, from their permitted emissions of CO2. (At the November 2001 meeting in Marrakech, Morocco, Russia was able to increase its allowance for such sinks.) Bonn also permits the trading of emission allowances, a feature that would reduce compliance costs and also yield considerable financial benefits to Russia and other Eastern European nations that sell their unused allowances. Yale economist William Nordhaus has modeled the economic impacts of Kyoto-Bonn, both with and without U.S. participation. A highly regarded environmental economist, he is often sympathetic to the promoters of global warming. But his results, detailing the costs of Kyoto, including emission trading, are an eye-opener: Kyoto-Bonn would reduce the economic competitiveness of the U.S. with respect to the European Union (E.U.) and other high-income (OHI) countries, principally Japan, Canada and Australia. As summarized in the journal Science (vol. 294, pp. 1283-84, Nov. 9, 2001): If the U.S. had joined in the Kyoto treaty with other industrialized nations, its total abatement costs, discounted over time, would have amounted to $2.2 trillion, while Europe’s costs would have been only 0.5 trillion, less than 25 percent. OHI costs would have been even lower, a little more than 10 percent of those of the United States. Russia and other Eastern European nations would have gained $1 trillion through the sale of CO2 emission permits. Without U.S. participation, U.S. costs of course drop to zero, while the E.U.’s drop to $0.3 trillion and Eastern Europe’s gain drops to $0.2 trillion. The reason for the lower European costs is that without the U.S. the Protocol achieves even less than it did before Bonn. With U.S. participation, Kyoto might have achieved a greenhouse-gas emission reduction (compared to 1990) of 5 percent; without the U.S. this drops to 1 percent.

After all that is it any wonder why those other nations are yelling at the U.S. to get on board with them?

Karter

Pauly,

After reading a couple of your postings it is my belief that you do not understand the political factors involved when it comes to the global warming debate and when it comes to how funds are granted to scientists. Those who vocalize that man contributes to global warming or who say man is the major cause of it get about as much research money granted to them as they want. Those who oppose that theory are treated as heretics, are accused of being paid by the oil industry and consequentially do not receive grant money. As if to be saying that they couldnâ€™t have come up with a counter theory all on their own, so they must be getting paid off by big oil, right? Things cannot get much more corrupt or more politically bigoted than that.

30 years ago, every major environmentalist and every major environmental organization was 100% sure that global COOLING was just around the corner. They were all so sure. They said the only “solution” was to reduce our use of fossil fuels and energy, and to have the government take control of the world’s economies. We ignored their advice. The global cooling never came. Now they claim that we are causing global warming. And their “solution” is the same. In both cases, their real goal is to have the government take control of the economy, and to get rid of capitalism. They’re just using the environment as an excuse to adopt their socialist policies.

Environmentalism is a religion that is based more on political ambitions than science. I donâ€™t recall the name of the person who said this, and I might be paraphrasing a little, but it goes something like this: The desire to save the world is almost always a front for the desire to control it.

Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, said that if one becomes skeptical of the global warming theories asserted by activist environmentalists that you are looked upon by them as if you were a holocaust denier. â€œThe environmental movement, really it is a political activist movement. And they have become hugely influential at a global level.â€?

Results from a study showed that the snow pack in the Cascade Mountains near Seattle, Washington was down 50% from what it was in 1950. Those results were trumpeted by environmental scientists and leftist politicians as proof of human-caused global warming. But the numbers were way off from what is normal for that area. The years chosen for the comparison had been cherry-picked. 1950 was a record year for snowfall, and 1995 was a near record low for snowfall.

Al Gore plays the same game of deception in his agenda driven speeches and in his joke of a documentary An Inconvenient Truth. He says that the relationship between CO2 and climate temperatures is very complicated, but that there is a relationship. He is right. But what he doesnâ€™t say is that the relationship is just the opposite of what he wants people to believe. In actuality, rises in temperature lead CO2 levels. In other words, CO2 increases lag behind temperature increases. By the time CO2 levels reach their peak, temperatures have been falling for about 800 years.

You think Al Gore has knowledge of this subject? What knowledge he has he picks and choses which part of that knowledge he decides to let you in on.

In an interview with Grist Magazine about global warming Al Gore said: “I believe it is appropriate to have an overrepresentation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”

Pauly, you are wondering what harm could come from â€œchanging ones lifestyleâ€¦â€? As I stated above, CO2 does not drive temperatures up. Despite that fact, The Kyoto Protocol comes down to sharp cutbacks on the economic activities of the United States by proclaiming that cutbacks in CO2 would curb global warming. However, it calls for smaller cutbacks in CO2 emissions caused by other industrialized nations which are among the worst offenders of pollution standards â€“ China and India. Overlooked in the debate has been the fact that the economic impact of Kyoto on the United States would be at least 4 times greater than on Europe. So itâ€™s obvious that the agenda of global warming propagandists is the same as that of their fellow environmentalists and that is to stop economic growth in the U.S. No surprise then that in the mid-1990â€™s the U.S. Senate voted 95-0 to reject the Kyoto protocol.

Caps on emissions translate to a stiff tax on gasoline and electric bills. Until we have a viable alternative to gasoline, that is what we could be facing. Do you feel you already pay a lot of your household expenses on gasoline? I know I do. How about that electricity bill? Has it been too low lately?

In July 2001, in Bonn, Germany, 178 countries decided to sign on to the Kyoto protocol, with the United States staying out of it. The Kyoto-Bonn accord allows countries to subtract carbon sequestered in “sinks,” like forests, from their permitted emissions of CO2. (At the November 2001 meeting in Marrakech, Morocco, Russia was able to increase its allowance for such sinks.) Bonn also permits the trading of emission allowances, a feature that would reduce compliance costs and also yield considerable financial benefits to Russia and other Eastern European nations that sell their unused allowances. Yale economist William Nordhaus has modeled the economic impacts of Kyoto-Bonn, both with and without U.S. participation. A highly regarded environmental economist, he is often sympathetic to the promoters of global warming. But his results, detailing the costs of Kyoto, including emission trading, are an eye-opener: Kyoto-Bonn would reduce the economic competitiveness of the U.S. with respect to the European Union (E.U.) and other high-income (OHI) countries, principally Japan, Canada and Australia. As summarized in the journal Science (vol. 294, pp. 1283-84, Nov. 9, 2001): If the U.S. had joined in the Kyoto treaty with other industrialized nations, its total abatement costs, discounted over time, would have amounted to $2.2 trillion, while Europe’s costs would have been only 0.5 trillion, less than 25 percent. OHI costs would have been even lower, a little more than 10 percent of those of the United States. Russia and other Eastern European nations would have gained $1 trillion through the sale of CO2 emission permits. Without U.S. participation, U.S. costs of course drop to zero, while the E.U.’s drop to $0.3 trillion and Eastern Europe’s gain drops to $0.2 trillion. The reason for the lower European costs is that without the U.S. the Protocol achieves even less than it did before Bonn. With U.S. participation, Kyoto might have achieved a greenhouse-gas emission reduction (compared to 1990) of 5 percent; without the U.S. this drops to 1 percent.

After all that is it any wonder why those other nations are yelling at the U.S. to get on board with them?

patrick

No Dr. Deegan, dogma is the people who categorically state that there is no human component to global climate change, or that the phenomenon just does not exist. I’d wager the writer has read too few scientific papers which are generally couched in those terms.Science is, if nothing else, the study of change and uncertainty and the language reflects that rather than the rigid assertions of the deniers.In view of the consequences of inaction I’m going to go with “Nobody has ever made a greater mistake than doing nothing because they could only do a little”.

patrick

No Dr. Deegan, dogma is the people who categorically state that there is no human component to global climate change, or that the phenomenon just does not exist. I’d wager the writer has read too few scientific papers which are generally couched in those terms.Science is, if nothing else, the study of change and uncertainty and the language reflects that rather than the rigid assertions of the deniers.In view of the consequences of inaction I’m going to go with “Nobody has ever made a greater mistake than doing nothing because they could only do a little”.

Pauly

My goodness that was hard to read, and even harder to swallow. Iâ€™m not going to attack your long and drawn out lecture about why Iâ€™m wrong but allow others to judge for themselves.

FIRST!!! Global warming will (in theory) bring about another ice age. The earth will warm up so much that it will work to offset the climate change by creating a great freeze. In theory, after the water rises and the ice caps have melted the earth will swell and surge until there is a great freeze. Thus for the reasons as of late for all the storms, the oceans are warming. This has something to do with the lack of cybernetic effect. So in that SIMPLE aspect of global warming, that basic understanding of what global warming IS, you are wrong? Now Iâ€™m not saying that Iâ€™m some sort of scientific specializesâ€¦but I have read a book or two on subjects that interest me. So take that for what itâ€™s worth.

But thatâ€™s not what we are really talking about there is it?

Second. As far as the scientific community is concerned, it is unanimous that global warming IS accruing. There is only one notable scientist that I know of that has openly rejected the notion of global warming (and I feel sorry for the students of Wyoming University). The debate now is, is it man made or â€œotherâ€? occurring. The rift among the scientific community is almost not even worth noting. The majority of the scientific community believes that it is man made in nature. Deriving from their collective experiments and ascertains. Of the â€œotherâ€? side there is another rift. Some believe that it is naturally causing and the some just donâ€™t know what causing it.

But if you get one thing from this paragraph, get this: all scientists believe that global warming IS accruing and itâ€™s happening at an unnatural or unprecedented rate.

Thatâ€™s about all Iâ€™m going to really comment about on your posting. The rest is political diatribe. So Kyoto is pushing for better emission standards. Again, how dose this effect YOU personally. Do YOU have stock in the automotive industry? If so, than start pushing your shareholders to push for better upgrades in next years models. And we do have viable alternatives to gasoline. But itâ€™s the gasoline companies and people like you who keep blocking progress to extend that option. Unfortunately for you, the alternative fuel initiators are breaking through your roadblocks and making waves to get better funding.

In fact there are carburetors, right now, that will give your car 3-4x more mileage but the oil companies with the help of some politicians (republican no doubt!) have bought the paten on them and are refusing to release themâ€¦again I ask you why?

You reduced this global warming problem down to a us vs. them political fight. WHY!!!

Yes the tax and prices of EVERYTHING will go up. Thatâ€™s according to whom? The oil companies and the politicians who support them? Let me enlighten you in a little thing I like to co the economics of supply and demand. With the advent of alternative fuels and assume that a greater % of cars coming out run on alternative fuel (be it ethanol, electricity or others). This will reduce the price of gas because of the competition. YES, a simple recollection of my business class will remind me that the price of gas will sharply rise to scare the hell out of the people and thus go running to the politicians. But if cooler heads prevail, the economics will level out and the sky will not fall. Now, this may not happen in our lifetime, but if we donâ€™t start now, than when?

Again, what could it hurt to do the most basic of globally friendly acts? Like recycling goods instead of simply throwing everything away. Iâ€™m not asking you to give up your truck, but why not get off your fat butt and bike or walk from time to time. The installation of certain household appliances, which may cost more, will help out greatly and in the long to s short run, save you more money.

I ask you, how could acting in an interest that CONSIDERS your fellow man instead of this narcissistic lifestyle that is so sheik today really hurt you. In fact you may feel a better connection to your environment and your fellow man. Now if thatâ€™s bad to you than we really have no common denominator for which to start with and this conversation ends here and now.

Pauly

My goodness that was hard to read, and even harder to swallow. Iâ€™m not going to attack your long and drawn out lecture about why Iâ€™m wrong but allow others to judge for themselves.

FIRST!!! Global warming will (in theory) bring about another ice age. The earth will warm up so much that it will work to offset the climate change by creating a great freeze. In theory, after the water rises and the ice caps have melted the earth will swell and surge until there is a great freeze. Thus for the reasons as of late for all the storms, the oceans are warming. This has something to do with the lack of cybernetic effect. So in that SIMPLE aspect of global warming, that basic understanding of what global warming IS, you are wrong? Now Iâ€™m not saying that Iâ€™m some sort of scientific specializesâ€¦but I have read a book or two on subjects that interest me. So take that for what itâ€™s worth.

But thatâ€™s not what we are really talking about there is it?

Second. As far as the scientific community is concerned, it is unanimous that global warming IS accruing. There is only one notable scientist that I know of that has openly rejected the notion of global warming (and I feel sorry for the students of Wyoming University). The debate now is, is it man made or â€œotherâ€? occurring. The rift among the scientific community is almost not even worth noting. The majority of the scientific community believes that it is man made in nature. Deriving from their collective experiments and ascertains. Of the â€œotherâ€? side there is another rift. Some believe that it is naturally causing and the some just donâ€™t know what causing it.

But if you get one thing from this paragraph, get this: all scientists believe that global warming IS accruing and itâ€™s happening at an unnatural or unprecedented rate.

Thatâ€™s about all Iâ€™m going to really comment about on your posting. The rest is political diatribe. So Kyoto is pushing for better emission standards. Again, how dose this effect YOU personally. Do YOU have stock in the automotive industry? If so, than start pushing your shareholders to push for better upgrades in next years models. And we do have viable alternatives to gasoline. But itâ€™s the gasoline companies and people like you who keep blocking progress to extend that option. Unfortunately for you, the alternative fuel initiators are breaking through your roadblocks and making waves to get better funding.

In fact there are carburetors, right now, that will give your car 3-4x more mileage but the oil companies with the help of some politicians (republican no doubt!) have bought the paten on them and are refusing to release themâ€¦again I ask you why?

You reduced this global warming problem down to a us vs. them political fight. WHY!!!

Yes the tax and prices of EVERYTHING will go up. Thatâ€™s according to whom? The oil companies and the politicians who support them? Let me enlighten you in a little thing I like to co the economics of supply and demand. With the advent of alternative fuels and assume that a greater % of cars coming out run on alternative fuel (be it ethanol, electricity or others). This will reduce the price of gas because of the competition. YES, a simple recollection of my business class will remind me that the price of gas will sharply rise to scare the hell out of the people and thus go running to the politicians. But if cooler heads prevail, the economics will level out and the sky will not fall. Now, this may not happen in our lifetime, but if we donâ€™t start now, than when?

Again, what could it hurt to do the most basic of globally friendly acts? Like recycling goods instead of simply throwing everything away. Iâ€™m not asking you to give up your truck, but why not get off your fat butt and bike or walk from time to time. The installation of certain household appliances, which may cost more, will help out greatly and in the long to s short run, save you more money.

I ask you, how could acting in an interest that CONSIDERS your fellow man instead of this narcissistic lifestyle that is so sheik today really hurt you. In fact you may feel a better connection to your environment and your fellow man. Now if thatâ€™s bad to you than we really have no common denominator for which to start with and this conversation ends here and now.

Pauly

I would like to elaborate a little on you argument and how you narrowed it down to one point in the vast array of points on this matter. Will the transition of accepting global warming politically and economically be a smooth one? No. Obviously, most people with a stake in the clam of wealth today donâ€™t want anything changed. They will fightâ€¦and we will fightâ€¦and in the end it all up to mother earth.

So you have one, out of hundreds of thousands of, companyâ€™s, forums, clubs, movements and individuals involved in this issue that sticks a thorn in your crawl and youâ€™re ready to chuck the whole thing in. Wonderful. To rule out the â€œvision of changeâ€? simply because it wouldnâ€™t effetely and uniformly transition into some instant utopia is absurd. Itâ€™s going to be a struggle and Iâ€™m ready to fight to the end and we will win. WHY? Because you are only thinking about economics and how it effects your pocket bookâ€¦Iâ€™m thinking about my children and what kind of a world they will be living in. Iâ€™m ready to go the distance because I have a real passion for this issueâ€¦because I have a real passion for my children.

People like you make the same argument that NRA makes when it comes to gun control. Their argument, in essence is that no one law can prevent all possible crimesâ€¦so no laws need to be enforced. With that logic we should abandon all child predatory laws and rape laws, for no one law could prevent all of those systematic crimes form happening. Like Al Gore noticed and wrote about, itâ€™s an assault on reason.

Pauly

I would like to elaborate a little on you argument and how you narrowed it down to one point in the vast array of points on this matter. Will the transition of accepting global warming politically and economically be a smooth one? No. Obviously, most people with a stake in the clam of wealth today donâ€™t want anything changed. They will fightâ€¦and we will fightâ€¦and in the end it all up to mother earth.

So you have one, out of hundreds of thousands of, companyâ€™s, forums, clubs, movements and individuals involved in this issue that sticks a thorn in your crawl and youâ€™re ready to chuck the whole thing in. Wonderful. To rule out the â€œvision of changeâ€? simply because it wouldnâ€™t effetely and uniformly transition into some instant utopia is absurd. Itâ€™s going to be a struggle and Iâ€™m ready to fight to the end and we will win. WHY? Because you are only thinking about economics and how it effects your pocket bookâ€¦Iâ€™m thinking about my children and what kind of a world they will be living in. Iâ€™m ready to go the distance because I have a real passion for this issueâ€¦because I have a real passion for my children.

People like you make the same argument that NRA makes when it comes to gun control. Their argument, in essence is that no one law can prevent all possible crimesâ€¦so no laws need to be enforced. With that logic we should abandon all child predatory laws and rape laws, for no one law could prevent all of those systematic crimes form happening. Like Al Gore noticed and wrote about, itâ€™s an assault on reason.

Vincent Carroll is The Denver Post's editorial page editor. He has been writing commentary on politics and public policy in Colorado since 1982 and was originally with the Rocky Mountain News, where he was also editor of the editorial pages until that newspaper gave up the ghost in 2009.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.

To reach the Denver Post editorial page by phone: 303-954-1331

Posts by Category

Idea Log Archives

About The Idea Log

The idea log The Denver Post editorial board shares commentary and opinion on issues of interest to Coloradans.